The kashmir dispute in a nutshell
Posted 03 January 2004 - 07:42 PM
Pakistan violated that agreement by invading kashmir with islamic extremists.
In 1949, the UN brokered a ceasefire calling for a plebescite to decide the fate of the state.
In 1971, Pakistan and india signed the Simla agreement, which superceded the UN resolutions, annulled the plebiscite and called for a resolution of the dispute outside the UN through a direct dialogue between India and Pakistan
today, the UN resolutions have been rendered irrelevant by another agreement, the simla agreement signed by both india
and pakistan in 1971..
In the 90's Pakistan again sent waves of taliban and al qaeda to capture kashmir from India.
In brief, Kashmir legally acceded to India. Only the modalities of its transfer to India need to be sorted out through
direct talks between India and Pakistan.
Posted 04 January 2004 - 02:21 AM
I do not remember where I heard this but it was a long long time ago. I would be interested in seeing references to the other version which is mentioned here.
It is quite easy to lose track of things like this so I would not feel too bad if someone did show me where this other version came from.
It is a tragedy that this has been allowed to run on for so long. There must have been thousands of people killed over this and probably tens or hundreds of thousands had their lives totally disrupted by the long series of wars, rebellions, raids, etc that this dispute has caused. It appears that this dispute and the related nuclear weapons programs have totally disrupted the economies of both countries.
Posted 04 January 2004 - 02:46 AM
The talibans invaded Kashmir and both India and Pakistan waited until the ruler decided. At which point the Indians drove the talibans half way through at which point the British allowed the Pakistan army to invade and the UN called a cease fire and said throw in a plebescite to the people to decide. Which was not in the original agreement. Soon both countries invaded all the left over states and annexed them as well.
Both countries committed great number of atrocities since half the people supported the other country. They really do not want to join either country but that is not an option.
Anyone who controls Kashmir control the sub Continent and most of s.e Asia as well and I am sure even the Chinese want in since they annexed 1/3rd of it as well. So 1/3 is Pakistan, 1/3 is India and 1/3 is china.
Posted 04 January 2004 - 04:39 AM
Everybody owns a portion of Kashmir except the Kashmiris themselves. The Hindu Kashmiris were driven out under a genocidal program. Just google " Panun Kashmir" and see the results.
Posted 04 January 2004 - 05:26 AM
Posted 04 January 2004 - 05:38 AM
Oh some guy calling himself dakbengla posts in the news section but he got pissed because I asked him why he was not selling gas to India but was selling it to Americans who actually sent arms to stop them getting liberated. He got pissed off, yelling a fee things and left. I had no idea they felt that way. No paki I know hates India like that. They just feel inferior thats all.
Posted 04 January 2004 - 03:19 PM
Pakistanis need not have any complex as they anyway beat India more in Cricket.
the time is ripe for Pakistanis to identify themselves. They have an unique of combination of Islam and ancient India. what pisses off them is the fatherly attitude of Indians in recent times by the Hindutva. Pakistan cannot drop the dual identity with the middle-east and India. They have infact taken a very huge step forward by being willing to talk and what they will not want is to be taught by Indians in fatherly attitude of a regional power. what Indians can gain from the summit is peace leading to prosperity. what Pakistan can gain is a definition of it's identity and also settling of a stable democracy. Both Indians and Pakistanis should "never act violently with haste over any terrorist acts" as it is likely to happen, until a way is found to stabilise.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users